nobody Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 It was sarcasm. But thanks for wasting the time. 283419[/snapback] Just wanted to make sure I explained it to all the stupid folks on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Excuse me, but......it's exactly the time and place for that. No one knows the mind of God. Perhaps it's time for Terri to go home. God's will be done. 282969[/snapback] Remember it is OK to swear, but not to say a prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I am all for Euthanasia- although, I think a written law pertaining to it must be made- the person must put in in writting, and it should have to be done beore a judge who signs the document. Under no other circumstances- WITH NO EXCEPTIONS! The fact that her husband is being allowed to make these decisions for her has no consititutional merit. As a matter of fact, I think the whole Constitution needs to be clarified to prevent people from expanding it into rights they DO NOT HAVE. The amazing thing about the Shiavo case is how it has really unified the republicans and real democrats.....and isolated the libocrats- all 12 of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 22, 2005 Author Share Posted March 22, 2005 I think its actually seperating republicans from right wing nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The fact that her husband is being allowed to make these decisions for her has no consititutional merit. As a matter of fact, I think the whole Constitution needs to be clarified to prevent people from expanding it into rights they DO NOT HAVE. 283603[/snapback] Do you realize that the Constitution really only enumerates the "rights" that the people allow the federal government to have? It was in no way ever meant to enumerate the rights that people have. One of the arguments against including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was that people would mistakenly believe that people's rights were meant to be enumerated as they are in the Bill of Rights. If the Constitution does not prevent it, then it is federally legal; no matter what it is. The 10th amendment makes the point that all other laws are up to states as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I think its actually seperating republicans from right wing nuts. 283632[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I think its actually seperating republicans from right wing nuts. 283632[/snapback] Truly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The fact that her husband is being allowed to make these decisions for her has no consititutional merit. As a matter of fact, I think the whole Constitution needs to be clarified to prevent people from expanding it into rights they DO NOT HAVE. The Constitution is vague intentionally, and the husband does have the right as set by judicial precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised by the results of this ABC poll. Perhaps I've underestimated the value most Americans place on civil liberties. That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved. Full story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised by the results of this ABC poll. Perhaps I've underestimated the value most Americans place on civil liberties.Full story. 283830[/snapback] People do not always know what is best for them. Hell 90% of the people couldn't tell you who the hell the Chief Justice is, let alone 5 members of the Supreme Court. You want to take their opinion which is force fed to them by mass media. This is the same group of people who on the main board here have heard of David Boston therefore when he was cut and TD didn't sign him, then TD was an idiot. Okay. I had so much more respect for you until you used this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelissaInPhilly Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 People do not always know what is best for them. Hell 90% of the people couldn't tell you who the hell the Chief Justice is, let alone 5 members of the Supreme Court. You want to take their opinion which is force fed to them by mass media. This is the same group of people who on the main board here have heard of David Boston therefore when he was cut and TD didn't sign him, then TD was an idiot. Okay. I had so much more respect for you until you used this argument. 283858[/snapback] VA, the media is making it out that Terry has NO CHANCE of recovery, and the parents are some sort of "right to life nuts" -- I don't trust the media and I don't know if this is true. I was just thinking -- if I locked my cats in a closet and let them starve/dehydrate to death, and someone found out, there would be an outcry and I would be put in jail. But let a human being slowly starve and dehydrate to death, and the person who does it is a hero, and people make cruel jokes about this woman's condition. Also, if one of my children was in a similar situation and showed ANY signs of life, I would fight like a tigress to have that tube replaced. That piece of paper (marriage license) does not trump my responsibility as a parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I still just can't get over the fact that JSP is on here arguing to protect the defenseless. By the way, Joe, didn't she bring this on herself with her eating disorder? Personal accountability? Why should there be a medical settlement in the first place? And if there was no settlement, who should pay for the (potentially) decades of keeping her alive with constant care? Medicaid? You and me? 283316[/snapback] (towards the JSP comment) Remember the line from Airplane!? I think it was the Point-Counterpoint spoof... "...They bought the ticket, they knew what they were getting into... I say let 'em DIE!..." Too me, that spoof somes up some of the people here... Now to be here defending something you would think would be indefensible?... Blows me away too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 You make light of this, as you had done previously telling me to 'look inward,' and while I pre-qualify this by saying 'no disrespect..." No disrespect, but simply because that is the world you live in does not make it the world the rest of us live in. I don't need to look inward because I would never expect someone to do something I would not expect myself to do in the same situation. The fact that you would do this for the money...the fact that you would not honor your commitment of "til death do us part"...does not mean the rest of us would not. Or worst yet...maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you believe you are the ONLY one who would honor the commitment and the rest of us won't. Either way, while you suggest I look inward, I would suggest to thine own self be true. But thanks for telling us how the cold, dark world operates. I'll be sure to update my handbook. 283403[/snapback] That is where you are wrong... I may have implied I would have done it for the money... And I apologize for that. That wasn't my intent. My intent was to not produce shock that somebody else would do it for the money. You assume a lot. Again, I personally would find it hard to let her go and probably be in the parents camp. My mother passed away from ovarian cancer... My father was able to let go quickly, that was his choice. Myself, I would have hung on to her forever. I don't know what my mother intended?... But, I trust that my father knew. And your welcome, because that is how the cold, dark world operates. And yes, EVERYONE SHOULD LOOK INWARD. That is not a bad thing and I take it as a sincere compliment that you feel that I should do the same. Life is about learning and growing. Off the mount, thanx EII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Terry Schiavo's parents ought to thank God that she isn't in Texas, because in 1999 Gov. GWB signed a law giving specific primary rights to pull the plug to the spouse. He seems to have changed his mind ... I wonder why. It would have been an interesting court fight, as TX courts are pretty ferocious about states rights, in general. I have a feeling that in 1999 when that law was signed Terry would have been able to have been released in peace, had she been in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Terry Schiavo's parents ought to thank God that she isn't in Texas, because in 1999 Gov. GWB signed a law giving specific primary rights to pull the plug to the spouse. He seems to have changed his mind ... I wonder why. 283956[/snapback] Maybe he has finally stop being a politician and started acting on what he believes in and what got him into office. At this point he is a lame duck president, has no future political career, therefore he doesn't have to pander to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 What? 282993[/snapback] It's obviously a winger site. Scroll down to the bottom and see what paranoid conspiracy nonsense the right still clings to. I feel unclean just having read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Plus how much money does he get from movie and book deals, once it is all said and done. yet another reason not to divorce since he will have the rights to sell her life story. 283041[/snapback] Spin it back and ask yourself how much do her folks and brother have to gain from it? How much do the right wing politicians that further this tasteless charade, and the Randall Terry groups that back them, have to gain from it. No one's hands are clean. Just keep government out of family issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 It's obviously a winger site. Scroll down to the bottom and see what paranoid conspiracy nonsense the right still clings to. I feel unclean just having read it. 283970[/snapback] I didn't realize that, I was just trying to find you the quick numbers. As I posted the awards was between 2.25 and 2.5 depending on who was accurate as far as the second award to Terri. The point is he is saying he is broke, but has received 2.5 million or so and another million on the way. By the records he, her guardian and everyone else has shown he has spent about 250K on her care, and about 700K to put her to death. That leaves the 50K or so that he says he has left. But the facts are he still has about 1.5 million or so, plus another million the day she dies. Whether or not you believe he is doing this for the money and least partially or not, it would be more heartfelt if he were to repost the facts of the money, not what he and his lawyers want he idiot boxes to report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 That was innapropriate. You can make your case without those types of comments ('most of America' against a 'charade' by the 'far religious right', 'zealots', etc). 283086[/snapback] Ok, how about nam-myoho-renge kyo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Spin it back and ask yourself how much do her folks and brother have to gain from it?How much do the right wing politicians that further this tasteless charade, and the Randall Terry groups that back them, have to gain from it. No one's hands are clean. Just keep government out of family issues. 283975[/snapback] Oh I don't give them a break either. But at least the parents want all the money set aside in a trust that is to be used only to pay for her care. As far as the rest goes, of course piliticians are stupid and taking advantage of the situation, and the media is reporting only what fits therte agenda, whether it is the left wing's ABC, CNN, CBS or the right wings FOX. Neither is providing all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts